Property talk:P686
Documentation
identifier in the Gene Ontology
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P686#Single value, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P686#Unique value, SPARQL (every item), SPARQL (by value)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P686#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P686#Type Q14860489, Q2996394, Q5058355, SPARQL
This property is being used by: Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
|
include "GO:" in identifier?
[edit]I tend to think that the identifier should include the prefix "GO:" because that's how they are commonly written out. (For example the accession for dendrite development is "GO:0016358", not "0016358".) This is in contrast to most other identifiers (UniProt, Ensembl, Refseq, etc.) where they do not add a leading prefix. The only other example I think is MGI (e.g., Mouse Reln has ID "MGI:103022", not "103022". Thoughts? Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I will check if we have a policy for that. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- This property is becoming increasingly important. Is there anyone who opposes applying the resolution arrived at for disease-ontology-id Property_talk:P699 to this one? One way or the other, identifier schemes used for both of these ontologies (and the many other ones just like them) should really be treated the same way in wikidata. Lets resolve this and move on.. --I9606 (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Strong support I would very much like the prefix to be part of the identifier. Currently, when GO terms are added in our bot efforts the identifier, as it is provided by the original source. is preprocessed (ie the prefix is removed). This feels a bit hackish. In the documentation from the source http://geneontology.org/page/spatial-information-annotation-extensions the prefix is used. @Tobias1984: what is the policy here? --Andrawaag (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Support I think that all identifiers should carry the prefix if they have one. Makes it easier to immediately see what an ID is about. Sebotic (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- The property defines what it's value is about. For instance, the string "a7389752-9e5d-406d-9a02-9141600e4315" has no meaning, but in the context of MusicBrainz artist ID (P434) it is the identifier of the famous musician. Therefore I prefer in general to not duplicate the identifier type in the identifier, unless there is a strong reason. (For an exception to this general rule see for instance my comment on InChI (P234).) Toni 001 (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Support It doesn't make sense for identifiers to not have their prefix. Emitraka (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose The Gene Ontology (Q135085) can be downloaded in the RDF/XML (Q48940) format from here (file go.owl). Therein identifiers like [1] are used. If the prefix "GO:" is not embedded in the identifier then we can have an formatter URI for RDF resource (P1921) of "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/GO_$1". Toni 001 (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose prefix has to go into formatter. Currently the prefix is "GO:", but e.g. http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/GO_0005773 has a prefix "GO_". CV213 (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- All Properties
- Properties with external-id-datatype
- Properties used on 100000+ items
- Properties with format constraints
- Properties with single value constraints
- Properties with unique value constraints
- Properties with scope constraints
- Properties with entity type constraints
- Properties with constraints on type
- Genetics properties